As someone
who has worked in nonprofits since the late 1980’s– I’ve seen one issue rear its
ugly head more times than I can count.
The issue, which I’m sure has been around since The Hospital of St.
Cross was established in Britain in 1136, is poor board recruitment, training
and management. Granted the monks back in
the 1100’s were probably just figuring how to run one of the first recorded
charities – but I’m sure there was at least one blow hard that insisted that they
were right and dismissed everyone else’s ideas to make sure their agenda was
the one that prevailed. Sound familiar? You don’t have to work in a nonprofit to be
exposed to that sort of bombast, but the very nature of charities sometimes attracts
people who attach themselves to organizations for all the wrong reasons.
Charities, just like a regular
corporation, are created because someone saw a need that they believed was not
being addressed. Unlike a traditional industry
whose mission it is to provide a product or service that can be sold with
profits that are distributed to investors, non-profits have a social entrepreneurial
spirit that gives back to the community that it serves. The money raised is invested
into the programs that it offers, and it is dependent on volunteers, donors,
grants and corporate contributions to keep the doors open. The people starting the organization generally
do it because their passion is based in something that affected them personally
(for instance a mother whose child with autism needs additional resources to
get through school). In order to prevent
someone else from experiencing the same dilemma, they create an organization they
hope will help alleviate that situation.
Once the mission of the
charity is established, the next step is to create a board of directors. In some states it can be as small as three
people who are usually the founding members of the group. The goal is then to increase the number board
members who can help raise the profile of the organization. But first they need
to have a good understanding of the definition of a functioning board.

Developing a competent Board
of Directors is vital to any non-profit and it can help make or break how well an
organization is able meet its mission and raise money. Yet, most fledgling non-profits
get caught in the “We’re on a mission to do good and we’ll take anyone because
we’re desperate!” In the history of the
world, pleading for help in extreme desperation does not usually lead to a healthy
outcome unless you are in a Marvel movie.
Even then, the bad guy will probably hear your scream before the good
guy can jump in and save the day. While
it makes for great cinema, it wreaks nothing but havoc on an organization.
Sometimes nonprofits will
allow board members to serve concurrent terms to insure the longevity of the organization.
This approach has its pros and cons. On
the pro side – you have people on the board with a strong institutional memory
that the staff and volunteers can lean on for advice. They have also devoted
years to helping insure the longevity of the organization. On the down side, I have
seen board members who have served for over 20 years and have no intention of
leaving their fiefdom. That sort of complacency often leads to the dreaded mantra
of “This is how we’ve always done it and I don’t see any reason to change.” When new staff or board members try to offer
a different perspective, they are rebuffed by the long-term leadership. A board’s inability to allow different ideas or
technologies can leave a nonprofit vulnerable in a competitive market. Unfortunately, many times the reality is that the
nice people who work and volunteer at non-profits generally have a hard time
dealing with combative personalities – they are there to do good after all. The boorish behavior is too often allowed to continue
for years which just emboldens the perpetrator.
After
working with organizations and boards for almost 30 years, I’ve seen my share
of horror stories – here are my top three which go under the heading of “Don’t
let this Happen to You!”
Cautionary
Tale #1:
An arts group had managed
to bring on board members from all over the community and wanted to make sure
that its artists were represented. One
actor showed an interest in serving on the board and had been a reliable performer. It seemed like a natural match – the theatre
had board members who represented the community and had the financial and legal
skill set needed but it didn’t have an someone who could represent the performance
side even though the Artistic Director was also on the board. Things were going well at first until the
actor brought up a play that he had always wanted to do. The content was not keeping with the mission
of the theatre and the play was voted down.
The actor kept pushing and the artistic director explained that it did
not jive with the other plays that they were considering.
The actor persisted to
no avail and then shifted his tactic to get the board to remove the artistic
director. Luckily the board saw through his
manipulation, but it took months to get him off the board and it damaged the cohesiveness
of the group.
Cautionary
Tale #2
I was a fundraiser for
a charity in the early 1990’s that included an emergency shelter for children who
had to be removed from their homes because of abuse, abandonment and neglect. If you know anything about child welfare, then
you know it takes numerous reports and legal maneuvering to place a child outside
their home. It’s a very traumatic process for everyone involved and is only
done if there is no other alternative. The children are put in the shelter
until they can be placed in a foster or group home. There was a board member who gave a fair amount
of money to the organization who loved to go down to the shelter and play with
the kids. That all seemed fine until one
of the teachers started to feel uncomfortable with the attention that he would
lavish on the children because he would insist that they sit on his lap. One day, she noticed after one of the
children jumped off his lap that he had what appeared to be an erection. She was horrified and quickly had the children
go with her. She informed the board member that the children needed to have
dinner and that volunteer hours were over.
She was not sure what she
needed to do since she knew this person was an influential member of the
board. She informed her superior who
informed the Executive Director. The Executive
Director had a meeting with the Chairman of the Board who at first refused to
believe it because the accused was a pillar of the community and it was a very
serious accusation. They questioned the
teacher and other staff members who admitted that they had seen it too but because
he was a major donor and a board member, they didn’t know how to respond to it.
The Executive Director
and the Chairman of the Board called the board member in and told him the results
of their investigation. He denied it but
resigned from the board and the case was turned over to law enforcement and the
Department of Family Services. New procedures
and training were put in place to prevent this situation from ever happening
again.
The prior two stories show
what can happen when you have someone who uses their influence to manipulate
the people around them to try to further their agenda. In the first story the actor was working out
of sheer ego to get a play produced as his own star vehicle and when he didn’t
get his way, he tried to remove what he saw as the obstacle – the Artistic Director.
The second story had a much more nefarious tone in which you had someone using
their social standing and financial contributions so he could victimize the children
that the organization had pledged to protect.
Cautionary
tale #3
This last story shows
how a lack of understanding of the true mission of the organization and the correct
chain of command can lead to a huge public relations snafu that can take years
to repair.
I was the executive
secretary at a child welfare agency that included foster care. Ideally, foster
parents are trained to take care of the children in their stead with the idea
that it will not be a permanent placement but a place that a child can reside outside
an institutionalized setting while the state tries to facilitate reunification
with their biological family. Sometimes the placements are made almost at birth
if it’s determined that the child’s safety would be in peril if they went home
with their parents who might have drug or alcohol addiction issues.
One of the foster care
parents at this agency had nurtured a young girl
since she was an infant. The parents were getting back on their feet
and the state wanted to reunify the family.
The foster mother understandably had grown close to this young child who
was two years old at this point and had let a few people at the agency know that
she was interested in adoption. She was
told that unless there was a termination of parental rights by the state, that the
goal for the family was always reunification. The foster mother had a hard time
accepting this. She didn’t want to help facilitate
the supervised visits and made it difficult for the biological parents to meet with
their daughter.
When it looked like the
biological parents would receive custody of their daughter, the foster mother fled
in the middle of the night with the young girl and left her husband and young
son to contend with the press and legal fallout. The fact that a foster parent decided to take
such a drastic action was bad enough but the reaction from the Chairman of the Board
of the organization was even worse.
She was a friend of the
woman and called a press conference unbeknownst to the Executive Director to
say that she completely supported what the fugitive foster mother was doing. The Chairman stated that her friend was
within her rights to protect the child by going into hiding. This proclamation of support to a woman who
was now herself a criminal went against everything that the organization stood
for. It also put several state welfare
contracts in jeopardy which would have greatly reduced the services that the organization
could offer and might subsequently cause staff lay-offs. None of this had crossed
the Chairman’s mind while she was expressing her righteous indignation to the
media.
A conference call was
held with the board members and the Executive Director minus the Chairman. The
decision was made to refute what the Chairman had said and explain that the organization
supported the reunification of the family.
The woman and the child were found in the middle of the state (luckily,
she had not crossed state line, or the legal ramifications would have been even
greater). The young girl was reunited
with her biological parents and the foster mom ended up in a world of legal
trouble.
This last tale exposed
a total lack of cohesiveness and communication on the part of the agency. As a result, the chairman resigned from the
board. A new communication and board policy was put in place in which only the Executive
Director could speak to the media on behalf of the agency. There were meetings with state agencies and
foster parents to assure the affected parties that there would not be repeat of
this debacle. It took years to rebuild the trust between the government entities
and donors with the organization just because one person decided to go rogue.
“Those are some pretty frightening
stories. How do I prevent that from happening to my organization?” you might
ask. It’s a matter of training and
communicating to your board what is expected.
Here are a few suggestions on how to prevent a volunteer leadership implosion:
- Develop a board handbook
that each board member signs to make sure they understand their
responsibilities and how to counter toxic behavior. Have Board members attend an orientation
where they can ask questions. Make sure
they meet one-on-one with the Executive Director and allow them to get to know
senior management to keep the lines of communication open.
- Always ask a potential board member to serve on a committee first. If you start to see negative issues when they are on a committee, you can deal with them when they are not serving as a legal entity which has more gravity than just helping volunteer for an upcoming fundraiser.
- Make sure you have liability insurance for board
members and volunteers. The three cautionary tales are a prime
reason why you need coverage in case one of your board members goes way
out of bounds and you are sued because of their misconduct.
· Go with your gut instinct.
In all three instances, board and staff members mentioned that they felt something
was not quite right with the offending party but did not want to cast aspersions. Their need to believe in the best in people made
it easy for the perpetrators to manipulate the situation. It’s slippery slope to maneuver but it’s vital
if something just does not seem right to figure out why.
·
Do your due
diligence. It’s not enough for one or
two people to vouch for someone – actually check with people they work with,
and other community organizations they might volunteer for. You would do a
background and reference check for a new staff member, use that same diligence with
potential board member.
·
If they are serving on
more than two boards and they want to come on your board, insist that they serve
on a committee. Most of the time you can’t
be heavily active on three boards without conflicts of interest or scheduling
issues. If they are not showing up for
board meetings and you need their vote to pass a motion, it can really undermine
what business the board is able to accomplish legally.